On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Matthew Terenzio <[email protected]>wrote: >> sued about caching content.
Whatever the merit of cases concerning the caching of HTML pages, the syndication of syndication feeds is a very different subject. Use of a syndication format and posting data in that format in a publicly readable location creates an implied license to syndicate (i.e. perform various facilitative acts, including copying, in order to achieve the function of syndication or distribution of the data.) Of course, all other constraints of copyright remain in place unless grants are made via something like Creative Commons licenses. Thus, while you can syndicate, you can't create derivative works, re-purpose or remix content, etc. unless those modifications are essential for syndication. (Note: This is another area in which it is useful that Atom focuses on entries, not feeds. Defining the "entry" as the elemental unit makes it less risky to construct the aggregate or synthetic feeds often used in syndication systems...) bob wyman On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Matthew Terenzio <[email protected]>wrote: > All other web based aggregators, yes. I don't think it's an issue but I > also don't think a Search Engine is a valid argument against it because > Google was in fact sued about caching content. They won, but not because the > courts said it was NOT an infringement. > > In fact (and I'm remembering a case from many years ago so I could be > wrong) I think the courts said it WAS a violation, but that search engines > were a necessary service to the common good and we wouldn't be able to use > the web without them, so the benefits in that case outweighed the > infringement. Weird huh. > > But yes, pushing is different from republishing. I think that's the key. > Otherwise, every router would be in violation of copyright infringement. > It's nice to allow choice to the publsiher, if possible, but I doubt there > will be a huge pushback here, if any. > > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Brett Slatkin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Julien Genestoux > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Matthew, > > There might be a risk, yes. But I think there is a clear distinction > between > > "pushing content" and "re-publising". When we "push" that content, it has > no > > URL (meaning, it can't be accesses anywhere : if you're not subscribed to > > the feed, you'll miss it forever), however, when you re-publish, > > technically, you duplicate that content. > > In my idea, pushing the content presents a very low risk, however, > > republishing presents one. > > Also, in a way, search engine would "fit" in the risk you're describing, > > because they actually fetch the content, exactly like we do. I am not > sure > > this is a valid 'legal' defense to say : "if you sue us, sue Google too", > > but at least it proves that they "let" someone do what they don't want us > to > > do. > > To put it another way: Google Reader and all other RSS aggregators > actively republish all of the content they pull from feeds. I believe > this is fair use as long as the feeds are not improperly transformed > (e.g., removing/modifying ads). > > >
